The right to bear arms
Replies
-
I'm all in favor of increasing mental health services. A $200 tax per gun and $1 per bullet ought to pay for it just fine.
financial punishment for people who own guns is not a realistic solution, either.0 -
As stated before, drawing the line is the debate. Ultimately, it is a debate that should be based on facts and research. We all have opinions. You are drawing an arbitrary line and saying "it's here". My opinion is that we have not even begun to seriously regulate the sale and ownership of guns in this country--at least not in any effective way. The regulations we have are so full of loopholes and so poorly enforced that they don't represent a "line" as much as a couple of random dots.
first, I'm not drawing a line. I'm saying there has been a line drawn. and moved. you do realize that in the 1960s, I could walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 easy as I please, right? and today I have to have someone at the FBI run a background check. they run my name and prints through the system, checking multiple categories. nine, I believe. if I have been convicted of domestic violence? no gun. alcoholic? no gun. felon? no gun. there's a lengthy list.
does that list need to be enhanced? yes. those with mental illnesses need to be prevented -- as much as possible -- from purchasing weapons. as it stands, they are only flagged if they have been involuntarily committed. (incidentally, there was a plan to do that in regards to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. but as a result of the 'fast and furious' debacle by this administration, it is now shelved, collecting dust.) fix the nics to include those folks.
I'm also OK with taking a look at restricting mag size for all weapons. The size may vary depending upon the firearm. And maybe there can be a provision that allows for a greater size if the buyer meets stringent guidelines.
I also would approve the closing of the gun show loophole. No reason for it to be like it is now.
I have no idea how to police or enforce, but all owners should be required to safely secure their firearms. possibly proof of a gun safe or other secure place must be shown, just as proof of insurance is shown with cars.
but otherwise? regulations are in place.0 -
Sounds like you are suggesting four improvements, all of which I agree with.
1. Enhance the background check system.
2. Restrict magazine size.
3. Close the gun show loophole.
4. Require safe storage and liability insurance.
All that would be a good place to start. And none of it would be supported by the NRA or their lackeys in Congress.0 -
the problem is that the vocal fringe on any issue is louder than the center. so all that happens is lots of yelling.
worth pointing out in all of this, though, is that despite the rise in gun sales in recent years, violent crime -- all crime, in fact -- continues to decline.0 -
You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?
No, actually, I am not aware of the statistics that say I'm more like to be shot "be" my own weapon. Actually, I have no idea what your sentence is even supposed to mean--am I aware of that statistic? Or am I aware of it as opposed to something?
Obviously she was referring to statistics like the one from the Harvard School of Public Health that guns in the home "are far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense." It wasn't that hard to understand what she was trying to say.
Source:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/
Wasn't obviously to me, since no link was provided to a statistic....which we all know are 100% truthful, meaningful, and always absolute.0 -
the problem is that the vocal fringe on any issue is louder than the center. so all that happens is lots of yelling.
That's how I feel on this issue. I will never be able to convince a hardcore anti-gun person that guns aren't evil, or that my reasoning for owning weapons is something other than mass murder. Just as they will never be able to convince me of their point. I felt the same before I actually lived in a home with guns, learned to shoot, etc. Then I realized I felt differently about them. Rather than resorting to sounding like that vocal fringe, it's just one of those "agree to disagree" deals.0 -
the problem is that the vocal fringe on any issue is louder than the center. so all that happens is lots of yelling.
That's how I feel on this issue. I will never be able to convince a hardcore anti-gun person that guns aren't evil, or that my reasoning for owning weapons is something other than mass murder. Just as they will never be able to convince me of their point. I felt the same before I actually lived in a home with guns, learned to shoot, etc. Then I realized I felt differently about them. Rather than resorting to sounding like that vocal fringe, it's just one of those "agree to disagree" deals.
The big problem with the national debate, however, is that one side of the "vocal fringe" controls almost the entire discussion and controls a large portion of our lawmakers as well.
If anyone needed any additional evidence that the leadership of the NRA is made up of people who are insane, it was on full display Friday morning. And the NRA exerts a huge influence on the issue of gun regulation and gun use. They have gone from a group that supported the right of an individual to own a gun, to a group that promotes the increased use of guns to kill other human beings.
The public stands of the NRA are not only out of step with the majority of the public, they are out of step with a majority of conservatives and gun owners as well in many cases.
92 % of Americans support background checks--the NRA opposes them and has actively worked to undermine them in states where they exist.
63% of Americans--including majorities of conservatives and gun owners--support an assault weapons ban--the NRA opposes it.
76% of Americans (including 71% of conservatives) support closing the gun show loophole-- the NRA opposes it
64% of Americans (including majorities of conservatives and gun owners) support banning magazines that hold more than 10 bullets-- the NRA opposes it.
IMO to characterize "both sides" as the "vocal fringe" on this issue is a false equivalence of the highest order. There might be individual opinions, but there is no effective, organized "vocal fringe" on the left for this issue.
I think it is clear from even the few comments on this topic, that there is a pretty large area of consensus on things that can be done to at least attempt to reduce deaths from gun violence. And, with study and research, there are other things we could do as well to regulate gun ownership without infringing of the rights of those who wish to own guns for personal protection and hunting. But even the most mild of legislative actions faces a steep uphill battle for the reasons mentioned earlier--because there is only one fringe group that is controlling the issue.0 -
I don't even pay attention to the NRA, to be honest. They all seem like wack-jobs. At least whoever writes the crap they send to our house, and the voicemails they leave on our home phone. I try to ignore them.
But I see your point--they unfortunately represent a real group of people, however small. I don't know enough about them to know why they oppose background checks, but that alone makes me feel like they're wack-jobs.I think it is clear from even the few comments on this topic, that there is a pretty large area of consensus on things that can be done to at least attempt to reduce deaths from gun violence. And, with study and research, there are other things we could do as well to regulate gun ownership without infringing of the rights of those who wish to own guns for personal protection and hunting.
Agreed.
0 -
Sounds like you are suggesting four improvements, all of which I agree with.
1. Enhance the background check system.
2. Restrict magazine size.
3. Close the gun show loophole.
4. Require safe storage and liability insurance.
All that would be a good place to start. And none of it would be supported by the NRA or their lackeys in Congress.
1. Yes please.
2. Yes please.
3. YES YES YES
4. I agree with the first part. I would need to know more about liability insurance. What are you insuring? Seems to me the cost of insurance would make gun ownership prohibitively too expensive for most people, allowing just the well off to own guns legally. I think most on the left and in the corrections system would love that though.
I do not own a gun but I like that I could purchase one if I wanted to. I have lived in a city, suburbs, and semi-rural areas and have never felt unsafe walking around. Maybe I am just naive.
I wish this gun discussion would just happen rather then being driven by the terrible event in CT. Up until the shooting no one in Washington was willing to bring up guns. It just seems like anti gun groups are exploiting the CT shooting to get what they want.
Off topic...
The people that want to restrict violent video games seem to be doing the same thing. The shooter happened to play violent video games so that must be why he did what he did. We need to BAN violent video games to prevent school shootings!!! Sometimes bad people do bad things. Sometimes crazy people do crazy things.0 -
Liability insurance makes whole someone damaged by willful or negligent misuse of the gun. The insurance will be prohibitively expensive only if gun ownership has an excessively high risk of damaging others through willfull or negligent misuse. Heck, the NRA sells liability insurance . . . . Although I doubt they support making it mandatory.
NRA endorsed liability insurance: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/excess.htm0 -
I am not interested in the opinions of non-Americans on the issue of American gun ownership, nor am I interested in the opinions of Americans who can't read. The Second Amendement very clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. If more people owned firearms and were sufficiently trained in how to safely use, store, and care for them, there would be fewer gun-related crimes.
I have a concealed carry license. I am armed 99% of the time. Few people are ever aware of that fact. I have never shot or killed or even threatened to shoot or kill anyone. My gun has never "accidentally" discharged. How is it that I have never committed a crime with my gun, since, you know the mere act of having a gun must mean you want to kill someone?
P.S. Guns are not intended solely for killing, humans or animals. Shooting (not hunting) is a sport and a hobby in many parts of the world, including the U.S.0 -
I'm not sure why someone not interested in debate would choose to participate in a group called "Debatable Debating."0
-
How is it that I have never committed a crime with my gun, since, you know the mere act of having a gun must mean you want to kill someone?
You are clearly not playing enough violent video games! 0 -
I support the right to arm bears.
.jpg)
0 -
I am not interested in the opinions of non-Americans on the issue of American gun ownership, nor am I interested in the opinions of Americans who can't read. The Second Amendement very clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. If more people owned firearms and were sufficiently trained in how to safely use, store, and care for them, there would be fewer gun-related crimes.
I have a concealed carry license. I am armed 99% of the time. Few people are ever aware of that fact. I have never shot or killed or even threatened to shoot or kill anyone. My gun has never "accidentally" discharged. How is it that I have never committed a crime with my gun, since, you know the mere act of having a gun must mean you want to kill someone?
P.S. Guns are not intended solely for killing, humans or animals. Shooting (not hunting) is a sport and a hobby in many parts of the world, including the U.S.
Tell me what sport/hobby requires you to fire off 45 rounds per minute?0 -
I'm not sure why we are even discussing this.
arent we discussing this because there are lots of people that want a change to the gun laws. even a repeal of the 2nd amendment?
it certainly is worth discussing.0 -
Exactly. We're discussing it because in a democracy, that's how we deal with issues. Free speech, petition the government, freedom of assembly. All those 1st amendment rights that don't get trumped by the 2nd amendment.0
-
Exactly. We're discussing it because in a democracy, that's how we deal with issues. Free speech, petition the government, freedom of assembly. All those 1st amendment rights that don't get trumped by the 2nd amendment.
Well, I'm not sure that Australia (homeland of the OP) is a democracy. They don't even believe in the right to bear arms! 0 -
While I can appreciate the sensitivity of some of our American friends in this group to 'outside' criticism or even comment, particularly given recent events, it is surely the sign of a healthy society when we are willing to at least take time to reflect on the comments of outside observers. Willingness to accept peer group review can only help us to take an objective position.0
-
I refuse to live my life in fear and, therefore, do not feel the need to have a gun.0
-
Great way to look at it.0
-
Exactly. We're discussing it because in a democracy, that's how we deal with issues. Free speech, petition the government, freedom of assembly. All those 1st amendment rights that don't get trumped by the 2nd amendment.
Well, I'm not sure that Australia (homeland of the OP) is a democracy. They don't even believe in the right to bear arms!
I'm not quite sure we are democracy.... last I looked we were a Constitutional Republic.
0 -
I have many issues with this debate. The right to bear arms was and has always been for the purpose of defending ourselves from oppresive government. Using firearms as a means of self defense was a given, especially during our forefathers days when so many of our citizens lived near or on perilous borders leading into the frontier.
The problem I have with the assault rifle crowd is the spin. Just be honest. If you like aasault weapons, either you are a collector, enjoy shooting them, think they are cool...ect. You don't NEED them for anything. A shotgun or a hand gun is more than adequate for home defense, and a pistol is much handier for people to conceal and carry.
Even if you make the case that assault rifles are needed for their original purpose, keeping the government if check....the effectivenesss of citizens being able to stand up to the US government using them is being over rated. The Iraqi army had fully automatic Ak-47s, tanks, APCs and an airforce....and we wiped the floor with them. So to think that any cititzen based militia with AR-15s would somehow protect us from a tyrannical government is laughable. An insurgency based in large cities would be the only thing they could accomplish and even that would be met with a very limited success.
On the other hand, now defending the pro-assault rifle crowd, I am bothered by anti-gun legislation because it targets law abiding citizens by assuming, with no premise, that they will one day break the law and slaughter their fellow citizens. It is a slippery slope when we tell citizens who have no history of criminal activity or mental instability what weapons they can or cannot own. I understand the debate...because using the very reasoning I use, technically, I should have no problem with a person owning an RPG because they have never broken the law.
We also have to be aware of the publics un-educated positions on assault rifles. Shot guns at close range are much deadlier and can split a man in half. Hand guns might only have 15 shots as opposed to 30, but can be easily concealed....and many hunting rifles have far superior stopping power, range and accuracy, making them a lot more ideal for assasination attempts.
So why I can not really justify why any person in this nation should own an assault rifle, I also keep in mind that maybe it't shouldnt be up to me to be telling other citizens what they need or don't need if they have never broken the laws of the land.0 -
As an Australian can someone explain to me the rational behind having semi automatic weapons available legally? I know the second amendment but its a right to a WELL REGULATED militia. Not a free for all. Having these guns legally available makes it easier to go on mass killing sprees. Look at the incident in China. 22 children were stabbed the same day. Clearly if someone is sick enough they will do harm, but those 22 children are going home. The two women who challenged this monster (I refuse to name him and I won't look at his picture. I'm remembering the people he took) could have potentially fought him off if he didn't have a semi automatic.
When we had a simillar incident we had some of the strictest gun laws in the world enacted. Between 1979 and 1996 we had 13 mass shootings. (Which apparently was simillar statistics to America per capita) Since 1996 (when the laws came in) we've had none.
I don't understand why the right to own a machine that's sole purpose is to kill trumps the right of American children to feel safe at school.
People who don't own guns mistakenly believe that a "semi- authomatic" gun is the same as a machine gun of some kind. A semi automatic handgun is more similar to a revolver than a machine gun. The difference from a revolver is that it holds 10-15 bullets instead of six and you can reload it faster.
It does NOT fire "hundreds of bullets per minute" as someone else quoted. Those types of weapons aren't in the hands of the general public.0 -
The sick obsession with guns is a malignant pathology in American culture. That combined with an equally pathologic propensity for violence makes America unique among industrialized nations--and not in a good way. 30,000 people die in traffic accidents each year and we have numerous traffic laws and safety laws that no one say "boo" about. 30,000 people die from gun violence every year and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?
That's a sickness, not a "constitutional issue".
3.000 people died on 9/11 and we unpended our economy and our entire constitutional and legal system without even a thought. 30,000 people die each year from gun violence and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?
That's a sickness, not a constitutional issue.
The NRA's obsession with not only supporting gun "rights" but attempting to force unrestricted firearm ownership and usage into every part of our society reflects a cult religion more than anything else.
In a group society, no one gets to do exactly what they want to do all the time. All of our "basic freedoms" are abridged to some extent when the common good is deemed more important. That is a fundamental principle described in JS Mills' treatise "On Liberty" which provides much of our philosophical foundation. There is no reason why we cannot try to institute legislation that could curb gun violence while at the same time respect basic 2nd Amendment rights.
The obsession with guns is a result of being a people who once had to fight to free ourselves.
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.0 -
But you don't need assault rifles, large capacity magazines, military weapons, thousands of rounds lethal ammo, etc, to defend yourself. Fighting mandatory background checks doesn't make you any safer, nor does tighter regulation of gun shows, etc.
I love the way you guys think Americans just go buy guns like you'd go out and order a pizza.
Everyone who buys a gun goes through a background check, and a waiting period for some guns.
You also have to be licensed and trained to use it in order to carry it off your own property.
also an "assault rifle" is not a machine gun. It's just a style of rifle liberals renamed because they think it looks scary.
This is a gun article written by a liberal. It's very informative.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/0 -
I'm all in favor of increasing mental health services. A $200 tax per gun and $1 per bullet ought to pay for it just fine.
so you're saying lower income people who might not be able to afford a 200$ tax per gun then don't have the right to bear arms?0 -
3. Close the gun show loophole.
I'm curious as to what this "gun show loophole" is. I bought a gun at a gun show. I still had to go through a federal background check.0 -
I am not interested in the opinions of non-Americans on the issue of American gun ownership, nor am I interested in the opinions of Americans who can't read. The Second Amendement very clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. If more people owned firearms and were sufficiently trained in how to safely use, store, and care for them, there would be fewer gun-related crimes.
I have a concealed carry license. I am armed 99% of the time. Few people are ever aware of that fact. I have never shot or killed or even threatened to shoot or kill anyone. My gun has never "accidentally" discharged. How is it that I have never committed a crime with my gun, since, you know the mere act of having a gun must mean you want to kill someone?
P.S. Guns are not intended solely for killing, humans or animals. Shooting (not hunting) is a sport and a hobby in many parts of the world, including the U.S.
Tell me what sport/hobby requires you to fire off 45 rounds per minute?
Americans don't own those types of guns. Drug Cartels do.0 -
Everyone who buys a gun goes through a background check, and a waiting period for some guns.
Utter nonsense. You never heard of the "gun show loophole" that the NRA fights so hard to defend?
Edit: I spoke too soon. You admit never having heard of the gun show loophole in a later post. You must have bought from a federally licensed dealer who happened to be at a gun show. If you had bought from a private party at a gun show, not background check would have been required.U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Controversies0
